Wednesday, October 12th 2011

AMD Unlocked FX Processors Announced

AMD today unleashed the AMD FX family of CPUs, delivering a fully unlocked and customizable experience for desktop PC users. The AMD FX series of desktop CPUs includes the first-ever eight-core desktop processor, enabling extreme multi-display gaming, mega-tasking and HD content creation for PC and digital enthusiasts – all for less than $245 (suggested U.S. retail price). This marks the first retail availability of processors that use AMD’s new multi-core architecture (codenamed “Bulldozer”), which is included in AMD’s upcoming server CPU (codenamed “Interlagos”) and the next-generation of AMD Accelerated Processing Units.

“AMD FX CPUs are back with a vengeance, as validated by the recent feat of setting a Guinness World Records title for ‘Highest Frequency of a Computer Processor,’” said Chris Cloran, corporate vice president and general manager, Client Group at AMD. “While overclockers will certainly enjoy the frequencies the AMD FX processors can achieve, PC enthusiasts and HD media aficionados will appreciate the remarkable experience that AMD FX processors can provide as part of a balanced, affordable desktop system.”
All AMD FX CPUs offer completely unlocked processor clock multipliers for easier overclocking, paving the way for PC enthusiasts to enjoy higher CPU speeds and related performance gains. Additionally, these processors use AMD Turbo Core Technology to dynamically optimize performance across CPU cores enabling maximum performance for intense workloads.


Starting today, the below AMD FX CPUs will be available from global retailers. Additional AMD FX CPUs and systems based on the AMD FX processors will be available for purchase following the initial launch.
  • FX-8150: Eight cores, 3.6 GHz CPU base (3.9 GHz Turbo Core, 4.2 GHz Max Turbo), $245 suggested retail price (U.S.)
  • FX-8120: Eight cores, 3.1 GHz CPU base (3.4 GHz Turbo Core, 4.0 GHz Max Turbo), $205 suggested retail price (U.S.)
  • FX-6100: Six cores, 3.3 GHz CPU base (3.6 GHz Turbo Core, 3.9 GHz Max Turbo), $165 suggested retail price (U.S.)
  • FX-4100: Four cores, 3.6 GHz CPU base (3.7 GHz Turbo Core, 3.8 GHz Max Turbo), $115 suggested retail price (U.S.)
Without spending a small fortune, users can combine an AMD FX CPU with an AMD 9-series chipset motherboard and AMD Radeon HD 6000 series graphics cards to create the AMD “Scorpius” platform for an astounding gaming and HD entertainment experience. As part of the “Scorpius” platform, AMD FX CPUs also support AMD CrossFireX technology, which allows the combination of multiple graphics cards in a PC for stunning visual experiences, and AMD Eyefinity technology support for super resolution on up to six monitors.1 With AMD CatalystControl Center / AMD VISION Engine Control Center, users can get regular updates to help improve system performance and stability, and to add new software enhancements.
Add your own comment

190 Comments on AMD Unlocked FX Processors Announced

#1
jmcslob
Thank you in more ways than I can say E.
Posted on Reply
#2
Horrux
erocker said:
Yes. Power consumption is dreadful. The one thing it has going for it is overclockability.. But you're going to need some great cooling and a big PSU.

It's slower than Thuban. I'm sorry but when a chip is released to replace a current lineup, it should be better in every way. This is a sidegrade at best and the fail cherry on top of the fail sundae known as Bulldozer. The reviews don't lie. I don't lie. People who think this chip is something good are in denial. Go buy a good CPU and forget about it.

Right here: http://www.overclock.net/amd-motherboards/946407-amd-motherboard-vrm-information-list.html
I want to disagree. I really do. However, I can't help but think if they had tweaked thuban some more, the results would have been increased IPC (compared to Thuban), AND 8 cores. AND less transistors (compared to BD), meaning better yields AND lower manufacturing costs than BD. And most likely higher clock speeds (than current Thubans) given the process shrink.

AMD what have you done? Please have PileDriver show up with 20% higher IPC, or 33% better performance, or I'm losing faith in you.
Posted on Reply
#3
Super XP
Thuban is OLD and it would have been a bad idea in releasing yet another upgrade from it. That said, obviously upper Management in AMD really screwed something up with Bulldozer, it's as though they had the Server/Workstation design team design the bloody CPU.
Could this be why they fired Dirk Meyer? Is he responsible for not creating a Desktop Version + a Server/Workstation Version?

Anyhow, hopefully with the B3 stepping along with its tweaks, performance will increase and power will go down so the industry can appreciate AMD's innovation.
Posted on Reply
#4
erocker
Super XP said:
Anyhow, hopefully with the B3 stepping along with its tweaks, performance will increase and power will go down so the end user/OEM's can find AMD's innovation acceptable, relevant or useful.
Fixed it. AMD really shouldn't of bothered.
Posted on Reply
#5
nt300
erocker said:
Fixed it. AMD really shouldn't of bothered.
How about release Bulldozer CPUs for low to mid range and PII's in the high end just until they iron out the Dozer's issues :D
Posted on Reply
#6
brandonwh64
Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!
I have seen some reports of bulldozer chips working in white socketed boards. Anybody have results of their own?
Posted on Reply
#7
blibba
Horrux said:
I want to disagree. I really do. However, I can't help but think if they had tweaked thuban some more, the results would have been increased IPC (compared to Thuban), AND 8 cores. AND less transistors (compared to BD), meaning better yields AND lower manufacturing costs than BD. And most likely higher clock speeds (than current Thubans) given the process shrink.

AMD what have you done? Please have PileDriver show up with 20% higher IPC, or 33% better performance, or I'm losing faith in you.
Agreed. Is there anything to suggest that this is even a great workstation chip? It often struggles to outpace an Intel 4C/8T chip even in highly threaded workloads.
Posted on Reply
#8
AphexDreamer
So I just bought an FX 6100 for $108 to replace my Phenom 965.

Good or Bad?

Just tell me like it is, I'm ready for it.
Posted on Reply
#9
Damn_Smooth
AphexDreamer said:
So I just bought an FX 6100 for $108 to replace my Phenom 965.

Good or Bad?

Just tell me like it is, I'm ready for it.
Not sure? Seriously though, the worst it could be is about equal.
Posted on Reply
#10
Dbiggs9
I was going to upgrade my 965BE to a FX but they seem to be about equal.
Posted on Reply
#11
Horrux
Dbiggs9 said:
I was going to upgrade my 965BE to a FX but they seem to be about equal.
Yeah, that's what AMD offered us faithful AMD users with the FX series: no upgrade path on the AMD platform. :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#12
Damn_Smooth
Horrux said:
Yeah, that's what AMD offered us faithful AMD users with the FX series: no upgrade path on the AMD platform. :shadedshu
Look at the bright side, we got better boards out of the deal.
Posted on Reply
#13
Horrux
Damn_Smooth said:
Look at the bright side, we got better boards out of the deal.
Yeah I got a better board, but it still can't run SLI correctly, so I am now forced to go Intel, which is what I wanted to avoid, pretty much at all costs. Bunch of crooks and slave drivers. But I have SLI GTX 570s for 3D... I want my SLI.
Posted on Reply
#14
Inceptor
AphexDreamer said:
So I just bought an FX 6100 for $108 to replace my Phenom 965.

Good or Bad?

Just tell me like it is, I'm ready for it.
Depends on what you're going to do with it.
If you're doing a lot gaming, you're better off with the 965.
If you're just in it for the overclocking, you'll probably enjoy the 6100.
Performance should be aprox. equal, overall, 1 to 4 threads if you slightly overclock the 6100. But the 6100 will require an overclock to 4.3+ to equal the 965 @4.0 Ghz single threaded. And if you do that, power consumption will drastically increase.
It's kind of a side-grade, but you get the better memory controller. If the $108 isn't a big issue, go for it, otherwise, it's a waste of money for you.
Posted on Reply
#15
Damn_Smooth
Horrux said:
Yeah I got a better board, but it still can't run SLI correctly, so I am now forced to go Intel, which is what I wanted to avoid, pretty much at all costs. Bunch of crooks and slave drivers. But I have SLI GTX 570s for 3D... I want my SLI.
I know how you feel about that. It does suck to leave AMD behind, but if they aren't going to make an attempt, I can't continue to support them. Rumors are saying that PD has less of a gain over BD than IB has over SB and that's just going to put them farther behind. It's bullshit, but nobody can reasonably be expected to wait for them to get their shit together forever.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment